HENRY H. STRATTON, APPELLANT,
v.
LENA ANDREWS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida Supreme Court case affirming a specific performance decree for the sale of land, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction due to improper bill formatting and that the underlying land sale contract was unenforceable.
The Court affirmed the decree, holding that improper addressing of the bill constitutes only a technical defect that should have been raised by special demurrer rather than general demurrer, and that the contract was valid and enforceable, with the chancellor's finding of enforceability entitled to presumption of correctness.
“Inspection of the contract complained of discloses that it is well within the statute of frauds, the court below having-pronounced it good and enforceable after hearing the testi in support of it and not having access to that testimony, this court must indulge the presumption that his finding was correct.”
Establishes that the appellate court defers to the trial judge's findings of fact regarding contract validity when testimony is not brought before the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLena Andrews entered into a contract to purchase land through the appellant's agent, W. L. Greer. The defendant denied Greer's agency and alleged the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Demurrer cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
This is a suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase land. The contract was made by the appellee with the appellant through his agent, W. L. Greer. There was an answer to the bill in which the agency of Greer was denied and in which it was alleged that prior to the signing of the said contract appellant had decided to make certain changes in the subdivision in which the lands involved form a part. There was a demurrer incorporated in the answer which on final hearing was overruled and decree entered in favor of the appellee Lena Andrews. Appeal is taken from such decree.
The final decree is based largely on the testimony submitted to the chancellor, none of which is brought to this court. The two questions relied on for reversal are raised by the demurres and are as follows: (1) That the Court did not acquire jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties for the reason that the bill of complaint was not addressed to it or to any court of equity; (2) that it is shown by the contract attached to the bill of complaint as exhibit “A” and made a part thereof, that it is not a valid and enforceable contract against the defendant, either at law or in equity.
Inspection of the contract complained of discloses that it is well within the statute of frauds, the court below having-pronounced it good and enforceable after hearing the testiin support of it and not having access to that testimony, this court must indulge the presumption that his finding was correct.
As to the objection that the bill was not addressed to the judge of the court or to any court of chancery, we do not think this constitutes reversible error. It is true that such practice is not approved but this is an objection to form which should have been raised by special demurrer. The demurrer was general, the bill was properly entitled and carried all other legal requirements, it was heard and disposed of on its merits and to hold it bad merely for the lack of proper address would give undue emphasis to a technical objection that in no wise goes to the merits of the case.
The decree of the chancellor is therefore affirmed.
West, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…p. 574. It has been held that when a finding is based partially or wholly on testimony not brought up in the record-on-appeal, the appellate court will indulge the presumption that the finding is correct. Stratton v. Andrews, Fla. 1925, 90 Fla. 375, 105 So. 842; Troutman v. Couture, Fla. 1929, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443; State v. Atlantic Title Co., Fla. 1935, 118 Fla. 402, 158 So. 888. It has further been held that, in the absence of a transcript of the evidence, it must be assumed from an order granting a…
-
Troutman v. Couture, 98 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1929)…d to us in the transcript. “When the findings of a chancellor is based partially or wholly on the testimony is not brought up for review, this court will indulge the presumption that the findings of the chancellor was correct.” Stratton v. Andrews, 90 Fla. 375, 105 So. R. 842. The fourth assignment of error raises a point which will require a reversal of this case but only for the purpose of correcting an error apparent on the face of the record of the final decree. The decree provides “that said proper…
-
State v. Atl. Title Co., 118 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1935)…The rule is' well settled that when a final decree of the Chancellor is based on evidence not brought up for review this Court will indulge the presumption that the decree below was correct and affirm the judgment. Stratton v. Andrews, 90 Fla. 376, 105 So. 842; Trotman v. Couture, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443. In the case at bar there is no dispute about the essential facts and there is ample in the record to warrant an adjudication of the main question presented which we think must result in an affirmance.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence